OT: Traffic Ticket Question

At least in the court in Rhode Island, if you can convince the judge (or he determines such from the camera replay footage) that you broke a law out of confusion rather than total obliviousness or active malice they'll at least knock your fine down significantly.

Statistically the odds of getting a total victory seemed pretty bad the last time I was in traffic court. There were about 50 people ahead of me that morning, myself and maybe four others got a reduced fine, only one that I can recall from that group got total absolution. He did come prepared with several pieces of evidence to support his claim.

** Your description is lacking detail.

Does a left turn involve crossing the middle of a road to reach the left travelling lane or not ?

** Which way is the sign facing in relation to a stopped vehicle waiting to join the roadway. To the side or the front. ** The pedestrian thing make little sense.

** How the HELL can we tell ???

..... Phil

There's maybe some possibility that you can convince the judge that it should be moved, or another added.

Which might be a consequence of his judging you not guilty, however you might arrive at that judgement.

Might want to keep that to yourself. I don't think /anyone/ looks too lightly on people who don't "look both ways", under any circumstance...

A more relevant argument might be: if this driveway is multiple lanes, then view of the sign could be obscured by other traffic. Say there's a large truck beside you, creeping over the line. Then you could honestly miss the sign.

Highways usually have important signs (exits, speed limits, etc.) on both sides, so you're unlikely to miss them. And overhead signs on wider highways. That might be applicable/desirable here?

Whether it was plausible that a reasonable person (you), on that day, given the nearby cars (since, if you say there's a video record of it, that might be used as evidence in this way), could see the sign, might also have to be proven.

Some of those intersections are designed to make it obvious that you shouldn't go through them (e.g., there's a meridian and it's curved in such a way to allow left-turning traffic into the driveway, but not out). That's another point against your case, if it's designed that way. (I'm not suggesting this for your particular situation, just putting it out there.)

From the limited information you provide, it feels likely to me that, you might end up improving the safety of the intersection, in the end, but at your own expense (i.e., found guilty and paying the ticket + whatever court fees they cook up)...

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

Zero. Traffic fines are often a principle source of income for towns. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

de

ers

a

ys

As unfair as it is, not seeing the sign is no excuse. I got a ticket for a red light, I was right behind a big truck and could not see it. No excuse. This is Ohio. Not better than anywhere but not much worse.

The only way you can win is if your state has anti-revenue laws. Like in Oh io, if you get stopped in a 25 zone doing 35, in court you can demand the t raffic survey that made that lowered speed limit necessary. Same here, like a stop sign hidden behind a tree and you cannot see it. This defines it li ke a speed trap or something similar. Many states have laws against cities doing that, and if you can prove your point you beat them on state law. If that law exists in that state.

Time off to learn how to represent yourself pro se, and the days in court o ff work, that makes it pretty much not worth it. You did not have a wreck s o they are not going to crank your insurance rates through the roof. It mig ht cost more for you to fight it, even winning, than to just eat it.

The best thing for you to do is probably to have it reduced to a no point o ffense. You'll have to call the prosecutor before the trial date. It's an i llegal turn, there is not much room to reduce the charge from there.

The judge might find something, and fine you ten bucks, but bring at least a hundred. Court costs are up. These cities do not keep the fine money, the y keep the court cost money. That is a subject for another day.

** This short vid may give an insight into how well that works...

..... Phil

In any moderate-sized city you're in front of a judge for literally like

30 seconds

zero. You should have seen the sign.

My experience is 50:50 in traffic court. You don't have to prove innocence, you only need to provide reasonable doubt.

In this case I would not provide photos that make the sign appear to be clear and obvious. Instead I would provide photos from the driver's seat of the car showing the view you would see that does *not* include the sign. If you stopped and looked, but simply didn't turn your head to the right which would have made the sign clearly visible I think your chances are slim. If you can show the sign was not clearly visible from the spot where you would have stopped, I think you have a decent chance of getting off.

There is also the issue of parking lots not being roads. I don't know that you have the same requirements to "observe" all signs in a parking lot as you do a public street. If there are lots of distracting signs in the lot that can be a mitigating factor.

--

Rick C

I actually got off once because I kept talking every time the judge asked if I had anything else to say. The situation was at night at a rural intersection where passage through was blocked by police because of flooding down the road. I waited for the green light in the turn lane and the guy in front of me was stalled and couldn't move. By the time I got around him and to the intersection the light had changed from a left turn green to a solid green so I proceeded to make my left turn. I didn't realize that one of the several cop cars at the barricade was ready to pull out. He followed me a way, pulled me over and gave me a ticket for cutting him off.

In court the Judge wouldn't let me draw the intersection on the white board so I had to explain it verbally. When I was done he asked if I had anything else to say which made me think I hadn't convinced him, so I started to repeat it all. When I was done, he asked me again and I started again. I'm not sure how many times this repeated until I was saying the light was green and the Judge banged his gavel and said, "The light was green? Not guilty!" and sent me on my way. lol

--

Rick C

It varies by jurisdiction and by judge. Take your picture, be respectful and clear, and see what happens.

You really SHOULD look both ways at all times, so I don't think you'll get away without any fine, but if the sign really is poorly placed then you should probably get a reduction.

--
Tim Wescott 
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design 
I'm looking for work!  See my website if you're interested 
http://www.wescottdesign.com

The first line of defense is to be respectful and polite with the COP... "I'm not from this area, and didn't know you couldn't turn left here". I average about 50% on turning citations into warnings. Once you've got a citation, forgettaboutit, you're going to lose. Does your jurisdiction have "traffic school" alternatives to paying the fine? That can save you increases in your insurance premiums... if you can manage to stay awake and not get snarky with the ignorant "instructors" >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

On a technical point, in a criminal case it usually must be "beyond all reasonable doubt". The standard of proof must be the same whether its a murder trial, or jay walking.

Its only the penalty that differs on the seriousness of the case, the burden of proof level doesn't change.

It does seam to me that many minor, but criminal cases, have the judge acting like its a civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard, i.e. out of 100 cases, 49 of them will be determined wrongly. I consider the civil standard for civil case fundamentally flawed. imo, an accuser should have to provide a higher standard of proof.

"beyond all reasonable doubt" means way better then 1% error i.e 1 in 100. It needs to be like, 100,000:1 minimum. It means, that there is simply no other rational way to explain the situation.

-- Kevin Aylward

[snip]

Bwahahahahahaha! Ohio is the speed trap capital of the world.

Before my father died in 2008 (at age 90) I used to fly into Columbus, then drive down to Huntington, WV, with my radar detector active but ready to be thrown under the seat >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

Yeah, they don't exactly give you the Perry Mason experience.

"You honor, I have amassed a preponderance of evidence to assert my innocence. I will do whatever it takes to DEFEND MY.."

"Yeah whatever, you seemed confused, fine reduced to $35 please pay by check at the clerk's office or credit card online within 30 days. Next!"

The legal system is from "Through the Looking Glass". "Beyond all reasonable doubt" means what the judge or jury says it means, no more, no less. You can assign any numbers you want and it won't matter one bit to the guy making the decision if he things you are guilty.

WTF does "reasonable doubt" mean anyway?

--

Rick C

Are you telling me some UK sitcom can give me insight on how the courts wor k in the US ? I couldn't sit through it anyway because I can't stand canned laughter. It is not this country, it is a joke and actually not good, at l east the part I did watch.

You're off on this one dude.

Normally, if you get a big ticket, like a DUI, you want that to get reduced to like physical control or reckless op which have less points on your lic ense and no jail time. If driving under suspension you want to get it down to simply not having a license, or ideally not having it on person.

However in this case the OP is charged with an illegal left turn. There is not much to reduce, to what, littering ?

It's either pay up or provide proof that this situation is rent seeking. Fo r revenue. Like a speed trap. Many states have laws against speed traps and you can use that because the way those laws are written their scope is not limited to speed traps. Like stop signs totally obscured by a tree. The ci ty needs to cut that tree so you can see the sign, otherwise it is rent see king and is illegal in many places here.

That is the OP's only chance, and be forewarned that it will antagonize the court. You prove your case you walk, fine. But next time they'll remember you and if they really got you for something they'll throw the book at you.

Personally, I would get ahold of the prosecutor and say "Is there some way we can make this where I just pay your fine but I get no points and my insu rance doesn't go up, because really, you can't see that sign, we can go the re and I'll show you". But I really can't think of a more minor infraction to which it can be reduced for the old plea bargain.

Sometimes it is better to just give them the hundred and whatever and be do ne with it. Even if it goes well and they fine you $10, there are court cos ts. Last time I went to court they were $900. Something like this I would e xpect close to $100. A waiver would probably be cheaper.

It was until the new laws were passed. But you have to know how to use them. A lawyer will, but are you going to hire a lawyer for a speeding ticket ?

So, Sloman has to deal with you for 13 more years then :-)

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice